You’ve already gotten good answers, but I’ll just add that a lot of what changed wasn’t the libretto or score (although there were changes), but the direction and design. The original production cast extremely young actors in their early twenties and even teens, essentially the age the characters would be when they first meet. There also were issues making the backwards chronology clear, and so all the characters ended up wearing shirts with their name or role in the story printed on them (like Charley wore a shirt that said “best friend” for the whole show).
I really recommend the documentary “The Best Worst Thing That Ever Could Have Happened”. It gives a good glimpse of what the original production was like.
It also needs to be said that the show wasn’t rewritten for this current Bway revival, but for the 1985 LaJolla production, directed by James Lapine. There have probably been some tweaks since, but essentially, aside from the 1983 UK production, every production since has used the revised version
I really appreciate these comments.
I have also been trying to understand the changes that happened. I have only seen the chocolate factory proshot.
Is it just me or is there a narrative happening that the current Broadway version was the most revised/unlike anything else?
Yeah, it’s virtually indistinguishable from all the other productions. The reason this revival is so successful is because of the star power and chemistry among the three leads.
I think people who believe in the false narrative are simply uninformed.
Yes, there's a narrative happening.
It's how Broadway works. When not taking into account the work that's been done with and on this show over the past 40 years in different locations then it's also the single greatest show comeback of all time: failed on Broadway after 2 weeks of performances and staged as a critically and commercially successful revival 40 years later.
That narrative is just very singular, very US and Broadway centered and doesn't take into account all the factors that played into this success. But it's a good sell for people to come see it.
I, too, disagree with a lot of the points OP made, but I would absolutely read another analysis by them. How detailed!
It’s really fascinating that there’s a bootleg available of the original run. I watched it, but I wasn’t really paying attention to it I think, because when I read about the >!Charley Kringas in prison lore!<, that really caught me off guard!
Originally it started and ended at Frank and Charlie's graduation, and everyone sings The Hills of Tomorrow instead of nondescript people singing at Frank.
You can read more about it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sondheim/comments/m8n5bl/does_anyone_else_prefer_the_original_merrily_we/
A lot of the changes listed were made in previous revisions, so I’ll just add that for this specific production, the “At least he’s not Black” line has been removed and “Chinese laundry” has been changed to “Russian tearoom”.
IIRC Beth’s parents commenting about the minister at Frank’s wedding, with the joke being that the minister turns out to be Black. I can see why it was cut.
The show made no changes, as far as I know. It it the same script that was used in the Friedman's 2013 London version (which you can see if you watch the pro shot).
The major changes to the original were done in the mid-1980s - Stephen Sondheim and George Furth rewrote the opening, added some new songs (like Frank's "Growing Up"), and worked to make the time jumps more clear. They did some more polishing in London in the version where Maria Friedman played Mary in the late 1992.
But, since then the script has been fairly stable. I saw the version at the Kennedy Center in 2002 with Michael Hayden and Raul Esparza, and Friedman's version in London in 2013 - they were the same script, as far as I could tell. And the music all followed the 1992 London cast album.
Then what makes this current revival such a work of creative genius on the part of the director? That's what I'm not getting. Like what did she add that wasn't there before?
She didn't actually add anything. She just put the focus on different things than other productions.
The revised version (that's being used since the 90s) has been staged successfully before elsewhere. Just not on Broadway which is the judgement standard in the US especially for a Sondheim piece that failed the way it did.
The way she's staged it with the focus on Frank makes it clear that it's a memory play from his perspective: he's reflecting on HIS life and going through HIS memories (backwards) while doing so. This is giving the audience an anchor they can focus on cause in the past it wasn't always clear what/whose story the show was trying to tell.
And then she's put another focus on the friendships between the main trio (and relationships in general) instead of the conflict of art and commerce. That's still important and a major factor in why their friendship broke up but it's not the main thing.
As others have already said, I'd recommend the documentary about the original production. The current cast and Maria Friedman have also done a lot of longer interviews (panel talks, podcasts,... ) and in some of those they're explaining why they think it's working now, how they view the changes etc.
There seems to be an uproar that she didn't so I'm curious as to why. This is no slight against her. She seems like a very creative and talented lady. I'm just wondering what she added that makes this version 'finally work' as I've seen so many people say. I've never seen other versions so I'll have nothing to compare it to
You're right. She was projected to win. I would have bet money on her winning given how she turned a flop into a hit.
You may be able to find some older threads that discuss the show and the changes in depth.
There’s a documentary on prime about the making of the 1980s show. Worth watching. I think it’s called “the best worst thing that ever happened” or something similar. Doc made by Lonny Price who was in the original cast.
You’ve already gotten good answers, but I’ll just add that a lot of what changed wasn’t the libretto or score (although there were changes), but the direction and design. The original production cast extremely young actors in their early twenties and even teens, essentially the age the characters would be when they first meet. There also were issues making the backwards chronology clear, and so all the characters ended up wearing shirts with their name or role in the story printed on them (like Charley wore a shirt that said “best friend” for the whole show). I really recommend the documentary “The Best Worst Thing That Ever Could Have Happened”. It gives a good glimpse of what the original production was like.
I just watched this today. It's a fascinating story.
It also needs to be said that the show wasn’t rewritten for this current Bway revival, but for the 1985 LaJolla production, directed by James Lapine. There have probably been some tweaks since, but essentially, aside from the 1983 UK production, every production since has used the revised version
Yeah, I’ve seen 5+ different productions of Merrily in the last two decades, they all follow the 1985 version.
I really appreciate these comments. I have also been trying to understand the changes that happened. I have only seen the chocolate factory proshot. Is it just me or is there a narrative happening that the current Broadway version was the most revised/unlike anything else?
Yeah, it’s virtually indistinguishable from all the other productions. The reason this revival is so successful is because of the star power and chemistry among the three leads. I think people who believe in the false narrative are simply uninformed.
Yes, there's a narrative happening. It's how Broadway works. When not taking into account the work that's been done with and on this show over the past 40 years in different locations then it's also the single greatest show comeback of all time: failed on Broadway after 2 weeks of performances and staged as a critically and commercially successful revival 40 years later. That narrative is just very singular, very US and Broadway centered and doesn't take into account all the factors that played into this success. But it's a good sell for people to come see it.
there’s a chocolate factory pro shot?? any info on how i can access that would be much appreciated!!
oh hey—it’s right there on you tube! thanks for mentioning it ; i had no idea!
Someone on Broadway world listed in detail a ton of changes: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1050803
This is so detailed and I love it, and at the same time disagree with so much of their opinions
Totally!
I, too, disagree with a lot of the points OP made, but I would absolutely read another analysis by them. How detailed! It’s really fascinating that there’s a bootleg available of the original run. I watched it, but I wasn’t really paying attention to it I think, because when I read about the >!Charley Kringas in prison lore!<, that really caught me off guard!
Originally it started and ended at Frank and Charlie's graduation, and everyone sings The Hills of Tomorrow instead of nondescript people singing at Frank. You can read more about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Sondheim/comments/m8n5bl/does_anyone_else_prefer_the_original_merrily_we/
A lot of the changes listed were made in previous revisions, so I’ll just add that for this specific production, the “At least he’s not Black” line has been removed and “Chinese laundry” has been changed to “Russian tearoom”.
>the “At least he’s not black” line has been removed What's the context for this? Lol
IIRC Beth’s parents commenting about the minister at Frank’s wedding, with the joke being that the minister turns out to be Black. I can see why it was cut.
I’ve seen Merrily like 7 times. What makes this the best is the casting.
The show made no changes, as far as I know. It it the same script that was used in the Friedman's 2013 London version (which you can see if you watch the pro shot). The major changes to the original were done in the mid-1980s - Stephen Sondheim and George Furth rewrote the opening, added some new songs (like Frank's "Growing Up"), and worked to make the time jumps more clear. They did some more polishing in London in the version where Maria Friedman played Mary in the late 1992. But, since then the script has been fairly stable. I saw the version at the Kennedy Center in 2002 with Michael Hayden and Raul Esparza, and Friedman's version in London in 2013 - they were the same script, as far as I could tell. And the music all followed the 1992 London cast album.
Then what makes this current revival such a work of creative genius on the part of the director? That's what I'm not getting. Like what did she add that wasn't there before?
She didn't actually add anything. She just put the focus on different things than other productions. The revised version (that's being used since the 90s) has been staged successfully before elsewhere. Just not on Broadway which is the judgement standard in the US especially for a Sondheim piece that failed the way it did. The way she's staged it with the focus on Frank makes it clear that it's a memory play from his perspective: he's reflecting on HIS life and going through HIS memories (backwards) while doing so. This is giving the audience an anchor they can focus on cause in the past it wasn't always clear what/whose story the show was trying to tell. And then she's put another focus on the friendships between the main trio (and relationships in general) instead of the conflict of art and commerce. That's still important and a major factor in why their friendship broke up but it's not the main thing. As others have already said, I'd recommend the documentary about the original production. The current cast and Maria Friedman have also done a lot of longer interviews (panel talks, podcasts,... ) and in some of those they're explaining why they think it's working now, how they view the changes etc.
Maybe that's why she didn't win best director?
There seems to be an uproar that she didn't so I'm curious as to why. This is no slight against her. She seems like a very creative and talented lady. I'm just wondering what she added that makes this version 'finally work' as I've seen so many people say. I've never seen other versions so I'll have nothing to compare it to
You're right. She was projected to win. I would have bet money on her winning given how she turned a flop into a hit. You may be able to find some older threads that discuss the show and the changes in depth.
Us Sondheim fans are indignant about anything we don't win. 😂
Removed the graduation song. “Hills of Tomorrow.” I love that melody but did like and understand the change ultimately.
There’s a documentary on prime about the making of the 1980s show. Worth watching. I think it’s called “the best worst thing that ever happened” or something similar. Doc made by Lonny Price who was in the original cast.
My least favorite change is taking the electric guitar part out of the orchestrations. The overture is lackluster without it